Collaborating and giving someone the keys is two different things... a lot of companies collaborate and share work, ideas, ect This isn't the same as taking a software that basically your bread and butter and letting people have at it.

You must be a Linux user... which says a lot right there... think of it from a business prospective instead of a user who just wants to know what GOG is doing on there system.

You keep repeating something about giving the keys. Keys to what? I don't really understand what you are talking about. Others already explained to you above that open client and open protocol aren't giving anyone unauthorized access to GOG servers. So far you didn't bring any concrete argument why GOG would not want to open the client from business perspective.

I can think only of one - GOG is not familiar with managing an open project, and it's an extra overhead for them. Nothing insurmountable on the other hand, but can explain some reluctance to do it.

True. Nonetheless, benefits would most likely far outweight the costs - just look at it, even without proper public API, community managed to code like 5 separate downloader applications

You haven't even seen it to know what changes it would need if any... give it a break dude.

I honestly could care less, and really don't care to debate you. If the OP didn't want different opinions against what he wanted, OP shouldn't have made the thread.

The client itself would be useless, but if given the source code one could easily build there own client from that code... for whatever reason. All the client is doing is pointing to some server somewhere to handle the server side features (aka updating, multiplayer) ect.

Furthermore, my main point was about security... not this. GOG may not even care since as you stated, they do work with open source software. So they may not care to share how there client works.


Again handing someone the keys to your software, and giving away free info and advise is two very different things. Programmers do share info, they don't always share there work though.

Take Steam for example? Would you expect them to hand over there source code or any of Steams coding to GOG, so GOG can build there client from Steams source code? No... because this is bad for Steam business.

You don't have to agree, that's fine... but neither do I... OP asked in a thread... and because that I was free to express my opinion and concerns. I just don't feel it's in GOG's best interest just because the OP wants to know what Galaxy is doing on his computer. Which is his purpose for this if you read his other thread.

Sorry, it's I meant that as a metaphor... keys to the kingdom. I never said anything about unauthorized access to GOG's servers... so I don't know how your getting to that.

Yes, it's good when popularity is high enough. Which should be the case with GOG, judging by the downloaders projects. For something that is not likely to have contributors, maintaining an open project is an added cost. Open source development is competitive and requires keeping enough interest in the project.

So, can you expand on your metaphor? Keys to what kingdom? I would understand it like one commenter above who said that it's like GOG giving unrestricted access to their servers. It is not. Opening the client doesn't equal to giving anyone unrestricted access.

Also, Fenixp is right that open source doesn't mean that something can't be sold or made business with it. Please, really, read more on this matter before making uninformed judgements.

That I guess would depend on your point of view... I feel the client should be restricted and it's GOG's best interest to do so... you don't, so to you it's not unrestricted access because you want to open the hood and see what's there... so again we should agree to disagree.

Also, it's good to note, that there are some projects which have open license for non commercial use, and require paid license for commercial products which are derived from them. I don't think GOG is the related case, since GOG doesn't monetize the client itself, but it's one of the options some projects use.

I think were getting off track here, I know that... as I said before though by giving out your source code your basically opening yourself up to people stealing your work and selling it/using it without permission and lot of times it's not worth legally going after them.

Just because some license says you can't, doesn't mean people abide by it. I help run an online open source game people steal people's code all the time for the game, to use in there own version of the game, even though the licence says they can't. Legally it's not worth going after though.

For people who don't follow the license there is copyright law. Opening or not opening the code has nothing to do with it.

I think it's a good idea to release the Galaxy client protocol and API. There are some very smart programmers in the community that will prevent bad things from happening to the client in the future, and this would be good for both CD Projekt/GOG and for us, the end-users.

But gog doesn't make any money through the client. It is not selling it. GOG makes money through providing a service; that aspect no-one can steal, even if the client is open-source. All the client is, ultimately, is a more fancy version of accessing the service than what you do through the website currently. The website - as any single other one on the web - is open source [server side aspects withstanding] already. You - and everyone that has access to a browser (*) - can easily access the code and 'steal it'.

But stealing that code will not make any difference whatsoever for GOG's service and how they make money. Nor will anyone else be able to use that code to make money, either. They'd have to replicate all of GOGs service, including getting licensing agreements and negotiating with publishers and building up the status and following that GOG has to do so. GOGs wealth lies in these latter aspects; no-one can just 'steal' that from them. It's also way, way, way more work / effort than coding a client / building a website.

Th[e client really is of little consequence to GOGs business model. What it is PR and user friendliness. It brings GOG on par with Steam; it opens up (if cross play works well) additional stock (games that are so far tied into steamworks and can't function without them); it broadens the appeal of the service - but that doesn't make the code of the client worth anything much itself. Akin to, say, a supermarket buying land for a car park, or a bookshop offering tea making facilities and couches for (potential) customers to use. Neither are necessary for the service those provide but they draw more people in. Neither the car park nor the couches are what actually 'make' money for those businesses.

As GOG operates on a different 'mindset' compared to Steam - from the non-DRM aspect to guaranteeing that games run, to offering refunds to games - that philosophy is part of what differentiates GOG and is part of the companies appeal. On that end an open-source client would fit in well. Public perception of a business matters a lot, especially if what you offer is not a product but a service.

[(*) You actually don't even need a browser.]

As I stated above, were getting off track here... again as I said above, GOG may not care if people were to use the code and make there own client. I conceded that point. What I originally meant was just a general statement that doesn't necessarily mean GOG, but open source projects in general as a reason for open source being a disadvantage. But I totally concede that business wise, it's not going really effect GOG much if people did.

However my main point was and still is security... I don't agree it will do more good than harm... but that's life, people disagree... and yes I may be a little biased here because I really don't care to see different forks of Galaxy floating around... I don't think anything worth wide and substantial will really come from it if it did. But that is my prerogative.

And the end of the day, GOG will do what they thinks is best... regardless of what we say in this thread.

Nevermind: I'll let you folks debate this subject. :)

I want to introduce you to webkit, the most popular browser engine in existence right now. It is what is called a fork - it is a fork of KHTML, the kde html engine. Apple forked it, made changes, and now it and its forks (like Blink) dominate the web.

I want to also introduce you to Libre Office, a fork of Open Office. When Oracle started disassembling the Open Office ecosystem, the Document Foundation was formed and forked it and now it is the only real competitor in the market to MS Office on traditional desktops (mobile is a whole other mess...)

I want to introduce you to Android. It took the Linux kernel forked it, and is now the most popular mobile operating system by a landslide. Most of the changes made there have been merged back into the original kernel tree, and now all Linux kernels benefit from the aggressive power management work of Google, and Google benefits by having all encompassing hardware support through the Linux kernel as contributed by others.

I want to introduce you to every game engine developed by id, ever. All have been opened source, and thousands of games and mods have been developed as continuations or modifications to their source. Almost every modern game engine at least takes the design ideologies of id to heart when developing their own engines. Valve's Source engine is a fork of a fork of a fork of the Quake engine. So is Darkplaces. So is Xonotic. So are dozens of other games. All benefit from shared source, and id benefits in its legacy. If it had not lost most of its senior genius staff (the highlight being Carmack) it could have just gone into the business of developing a foss game engine ecosystem full time and could have paid the bills by seeking inudstry support for their efforts. I honestly can't imagine how much better the games industry would be with shared source engine bases rather than the absurdities that are Unreal vs Unity vs Cryengine vs whatever else. So much wasted effort and time, and the results speak for themselves with awful ports like Watch Dogs. But that is the result of an industry that can't play in the same sandbox or grow up - Ubisoft obviously doesn't want to invest the time in low level graphics routines and engine optimizations, but they have to because they won't just have a core shared engine base anyone can contribute to and make better and go from there.

We all suffer for that.

I am a KDE developer - so I might be biased here. If the API for Galaxy were standardized, and the client were FOSS, I could write system control modules to integrate updates into the KDE desktop. You could have update notifications coming through Apper, you could set your preferences and install or remove games through it, you could have menu integration and (depending on the scope of the API) integrate uninstalled but available games, or even unpurchased titles, into a native client for the desktop.

It is probably the biggest failing of Steam on Linux right now that their client doesn't integrate or interact with anything else at all. Yeah they have their own aesthetic, but it makes it look like a toy when the Steam window clashes deeply with the rest of your desktop.

As someone who has used Libre Office and currently uses android/open office... no introduction necessary. As I said before I can totally see this later on, and I'm sure there will be a few people who will create something amazing if Galaxy was open sourced at some point. I would just rather see what GOG can do first and for the platform to become stable before were flooded with a butch of (let's be honest) 90% crapware forked versions. For every good awesome open source project you can name... you can name 10 more crapware to take it's place.

I never said open source doesn't lead to some amazing achievements... it has, and I use a lot of them. I just don't agree with Galaxy taking the road yet... now if Galaxy comes out to be pretty pathetic... I will likely be right there with you screaming for it to go open source so someone can fix it. ;)